Sisyphus Was a Banker

I have seen it before and loved it!

Thanks for sharing it

trazer985:

i'm a big believer that we have evolved to derive enjoyment/satisfaction from contributing to the collective group, which is inevitably what work is, since you do it for something wanted by someone else, hence money is almost a natural concept.

it's very notable that depression rates/mental illness among the unemployed are significantly higher than elsewhere, the vicious circle that unemployment creates mental illness which creates unemployment etc.

When you feel you are not contributing to the collective through your work, you get depressed,i.e. you cant see the fruits of your labour, or you dont see anyone benefit from it. Interestingly, though anecdotal, of the significant number of people I know who work in medicine/hospitals, the most depressed/withdrawn ones are the ones that live behind their microscopes, pathology etc.

There's some special kinds of people that love unemployment and contributing nothing

Ariely has some great stuff (http://danariely.com/), we've syndicated a few of his more popular posts onto wso http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/94424, particularly http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/understanding-ego-depletion, http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/why-bankers-would-rather-work-for-0…, and http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/harvard-and-the-politics-of-large-s…

Ariely is very adept with "eureka"-inducing examples, but stripped of the motivational tone, this idea becomes a whole lot more drab.

All Ariely has really explained here is why artists and journalists get paid a whole lot less than engineers and bankers. Rote, unfulfilling work requires more ancillary motivation than does exciting, meaningful work, which we would do for free anyways. Artists aren't paid less simply because their skills are less important or less demanded, they are paid less because there are more people willing to take their job.

Everything here accords perfectly well with Smith's idea of capitalism, so I'm not clear on why we are tossing in praise for a guy that ideated the system which doubtlessly created unhappy people wildly more efficiently than Smith's.

NorthSider:

.

Reductionists gonna reduce

Here's my breakdown -

People who adhere to Adam Smith's model in our day and age end up staying til' MD / Partner. These people are seeking "employment".

People who adhere to Karl Marx's model in our day and age end up leaving to pursue the fulfillment of meaning. These people are seeking a "career".

No doubt, my comment was a blanket stereotype that holds true for many, but not all. You have ones who truly enjoy their line of work, but you also have a ton of them who just endured the grind without a good sense of direction and by the time they looked back, they're in their late 30s.

Just like Dan said, it's important to find the meaning in your work - as long as there's fulfillment besides money you're on a healthy track. But if you're working just for the sake of a paycheck, you should start considering whether you've got your career buttress figured out.